Forum:Overview page template
*Forum*Forum Template:Overview Back when merging the Civ4 wiki into this one we talked briefly about the overview pages. I have now created the template, which has the following syntax: Each parameter can contain any data, everything will be rendered just like before. The big difference here is that if you use this template in an overview page, say, Trireme, it will automatically create a link to Trireme (Civ5) if that page exists, even if you type no value for the civ5 parameter. —ZeroOne (talk / ) 10:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Template:Games I also edited the existing disambiguation template to say that an entity does not exist in a game or the article has not been created because I think people may find it confusing if it is suggested that, say, Ironworks is present in the original Civilization. I have made the Trireme page an example, you can compare the old and the new versions. I removed the links from the headings as I personally don't like them and Wikipedia discourages against that practice too, but they can be put back if required. However, an alternate way of linking to the games would be preferred. What does everyone think? I think we can start using this template right away. —ZeroOne (talk / ) 10:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :I have added a few of other games as parameters: C-evo, FreeCol and Colonization. Adding even more games would be trivial. I have deployed the template to a few more overview pages and I have to say I'm quite happy about it. :) The only problem has been that the overview pages aren't always that well organized and I haven't always been able to deduce what game does each sentence refer to, but I hope that will be fixed over the time. —ZeroOne (talk / ) 16:59, October 10, 2010 (UTC) Combining the two I like the clever things in , but they can take up a lot of unnecessary lines for things that appear in very few games. Is there a solution? (Probably not!??). I haven't checked what Zero meant in the previous paragraph by "added a few", but I guess he was talking about "games" rather than "overview" from what I've noticed. There's no apparent reason for having two slightly different templates doing much the same thing. I'd like to see them combined, with clear instructions for use. A short name for the resulting template? C-evo and Freeciv have considerable overlap with Civ2 and some, though less, with other Civ series games, so it is right that they be included. Even the Colonization games share some things, particularly building names and a few unit names, so I think there's a place for them too. To avoid the "unnecessary lines" I referred to above, can we find a way to produce a "no show" result that can be created when an editor knows that a particular game never had a feature with the name of the page and (because it's no longer in development) never will? Any more template experts out there?? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:43, June 1, 2011 (UTC) :Combining the two templates should be pretty easy: just decide which one to keep and make it a redirect to the other. Also, I guess the template does not need to show the links to those articles that do not exist, if that's the template we wish to use instead of . doesn't show those games for which an article or a parameterized description does not exist, either. I'd be happy to craft you any kind of template you want, but I just need some specifications. :) —ZeroOne (talk / ) 22:12, June 1, 2011 (UTC) Combining the best aspects of each Just redirecting one to the other would not "combine" them. It would effectively delete everything (good and bad) about the one that redirected. Combining would put the best aspects of each one in a revised one or the other. An entry for each game (able to be deleted where an editor knows that that game didn't have that item), and a space (which seems not to have) for an optional summary of how the item functions in the particular game (as a quick comparison tool for readers of the overview page). -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:59, June 2, 2011 (UTC) :Okay. I just remembered I toyed with different kinds of templates back when I was crafting and . They are still in my user space and demonstrated in User:ZeroOne/sandbox. See the source code there. What do you think? The inherent drawback with more complex template logic is that, well, the templates become more complex. But the source code of is very clean as it uses a sub-template, so I guess that's manageable. What do you think of my toy templates? —ZeroOne (talk / ) 09:51, June 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I've looked. You've got it with http://civilization.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:ZeroOne/games2&action=edit - the sandbox examples show no lines wherever the editor adds "no" as the parameter. Can you incorporate that in ? Then we can explain it to users in an improved version of Template:Overview/doc. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:55, June 3, 2011 (UTC) Ease of removing unwanted lines I see from a recent closer study of coding that contributors are invited to "subst" the template for a particular page so as to be able to eliminate lines that are not wanted. That could be a short-sighted solution, because such pages would not share in any later updates of the template (e.g. when we add Civ6!). If there's no "coding/parameter" way to arrange for a particular game to be simply not mentioned, I'd vote for leaving them showing. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:59, June 2, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I have never advocated the use of subst'ing a template. Where's that encouraged? Just remove such suggestions if you still encounter them. —ZeroOne (talk / ) 09:51, June 2, 2011 (UTC) ::It's encouraged on Template:InGames, written by the first author of that template. I disagree with it too. Now, can we move forward? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:47, July 31, 2011 (UTC) Summarizing desired contents of template *1. Gives a useful display with links even if inserted without any parameters; e.g. on Weight. *2. Preferably? for uniformity, adds a heading for the game concerned, e.g. as does now; see Spaceship. Add where the page exists but just add the "doesn't exist or hasn't been written" standard where it doesn't exist. *3. Easy enough to modify for any specific game just by adding something like "|''gamenamecode''=blah blah rhubarb foo" (which adds a paragraph or whatever, with an option of having the link to the article for that game completely disappear if you say "gamenamecode=no") - i.e. it will just say the feature does not appear in that game, omitting the "small print" wording. *4. I think it would be useful to add at the bottom. *5. Include Category:overview pages -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:47, July 31, 2011 (UTC) :Alright, I have now adjusted as per these requirements to my best ability. Points 4 & 5 were trivial so they have now been taken care of. Point 1 & 2 I handled by adding the "is not present or has not been created" to too. Point 3: here I was particularly happy to get your input: I really didn't want to add new parameters "civ1no=true" or "civ1=blabla|no|", so I think your solution of adding "no" as the description is perfect. :) :I used the Forbidden Palace article as my testing platform, it should demonstrate all the features that the template now has. What do you think? :—ZeroOne (talk / ) 10:45, August 21, 2011 (UTC) If the game-specific page name doesn't match the overview page name If, for example, the overview page name uses the standard "sentence case" (e.g. Military academy) but the specific game always uses Title Case and the author respects that (e.g. Military Academy (C-evo)), the templates still work if you create a redirect, e.g. [[Military academy (C-evo)]], which is then picked up by the template in its query about whether the matching page exists. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:59, June 2, 2011 (UTC) :Yep, that's a good and pretty much the only possible solution. I guess that if I really tried I might be able to create a template that could find pages written in Title Case when the overview template is written in sentence case, but it would never pay back in saved time compared to just simply creating redirects when necessary. :Redirects also serve to protect from users creating duplicate articles when they do not search for the Title Case article before just going ahead and creating a sentence case article, or vice versa. :—ZeroOne (talk / ) 09:54, June 2, 2011 (UTC) ::Indeed. And for some games the difference is not just capitalization. "Archer" and "Archers", "Nuclear Sub" and "Nuclear submarine", "Settler" and "Settlers", "Space ship", "Spaceship", and "Spaceships" are all possibly what someone might put in the search box or link from in text and therefore deserve redirects so that such people get to the proper page. Definitely not what a smart template-coder would consider worth including. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:53, January 25, 2012 (UTC) Other games to include As this is a forum page, it doesn't really have a talk page, so requests can be listed here: ;Imperialism (game) The name will be familiar to those of you who have studied "Recent changes" in the second half of January 2012. Maybe nobody else here plays it yet, but it used to have its own Usenet mailing list, I believe, which suggests quite a following, and I want to write much more about it. Any objection to using " (Imp)" as a potential page name suffix? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:53, January 25, 2012 (UTC) I've dedided not to abbreviate it, for now. I've added it to the template , with "impe" as the code and the full name in parentheses for the article names. Anyone keen to abbreviate it is welcome to talk to me about it and/or comment here. ---- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:31, January 29, 2012 (UTC) I've removed it. So very little overlap with Civ and Col games. See separate wiki. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:02, January 29, 2013 (UTC) Onwards and upwards The Games and InGames templates now redirect to . (If you want to see which pages actually have which template, go to and hit "What links here".) Pages that use them are usable without further attention, but most could be improved. To change any of those pages, edit to change to "overview" then do the parameter things you want. Adding is a good idea for most pages - whenever there actually is a matching Wikipedia page; it saves us having to compose long explanations. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:02, January 29, 2013 (UTC)